Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levelsCharacteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.817 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68) | 0.730 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.108 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.153 | -0.428, 0.172 | 0.403 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.048 | 0.145 | -0.236, 0.332 | 0.741 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.258 | 0.208 | -0.149, 0.666 | 0.215 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.381 | -0.826, 0.666 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.091 | 0.280 | -0.641, 0.459 | 0.746 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.904 | 0.403 | 0.114, 1.69 | 0.026 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.507 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.717 | -1.07, 1.74 | 0.640 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.703 | 0.454 | -0.187, 1.59 | 0.124 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.33 | 0.654 | 0.049, 2.61 | 0.043 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.187 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.264 | -0.485, 0.549 | 0.904 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.035 | 0.195 | -0.348, 0.418 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.380 | 0.281 | -0.170, 0.930 | 0.178 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.295 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.417 | -0.473, 1.16 | 0.410 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.324 | 0.284 | -0.232, 0.880 | 0.255 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.558 | 0.408 | -0.241, 1.36 | 0.173 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.371 | -0.544, 0.912 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.345 | 0.240 | -0.125, 0.816 | 0.152 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.455 | 0.345 | -0.222, 1.13 | 0.189 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.216 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.306 | -0.992, 0.208 | 0.201 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.036 | 0.243 | -0.440, 0.512 | 0.882 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.862 | 0.349 | 0.179, 1.55 | 0.014 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.870 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.231 | -3.70, 1.12 | 0.296 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.42 | 0.761 | -2.91, 0.072 | 0.064 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.062 | 1.095 | -2.08, 2.21 | 0.955 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.411 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.582 | -1.15, 1.13 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.420 | 0.393 | -0.350, 1.19 | 0.286 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.205 | 0.565 | -0.902, 1.31 | 0.717 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.516 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.730 | -0.591, 2.27 | 0.251 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.035 | 0.484 | -0.914, 0.984 | 0.942 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.683 | 0.696 | -0.681, 2.05 | 0.328 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.648 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.916 | -0.427, 3.16 | 0.136 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.00 | 0.574 | -0.123, 2.13 | 0.083 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.248 | 0.825 | -1.37, 1.87 | 0.764 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.333 | 10.0, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.471 | -0.571, 1.28 | 0.456 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.409 | 0.273 | -0.126, 0.945 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.073 | 0.393 | -0.844, 0.698 | 0.853 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.548 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.775 | -1.52, 1.52 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.780 | 0.483 | -0.167, 1.73 | 0.108 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.087 | 0.695 | -1.28, 1.45 | 0.900 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.632 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.893 | -1.43, 2.07 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.559 | -0.066, 2.12 | 0.067 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.271 | 0.803 | -1.85, 1.30 | 0.736 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.392 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.554 | -0.326, 1.85 | 0.171 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.809 | 0.386 | 0.052, 1.57 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.689 | 0.555 | -0.399, 1.78 | 0.216 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.253 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.357 | 0.044, 1.44 | 0.038 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.179 | 0.246 | -0.661, 0.303 | 0.467 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.487 | 0.353 | -0.205, 1.18 | 0.170 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.286 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.405 | -0.401, 1.19 | 0.334 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.339 | 0.271 | -0.191, 0.869 | 0.212 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.347 | 0.389 | -0.416, 1.11 | 0.374 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.296 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.419 | -0.125, 1.52 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.290 | 0.259 | -0.216, 0.797 | 0.263 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.224 | 0.372 | -0.505, 0.953 | 0.548 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.541 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.765 | -0.412, 2.59 | 0.156 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.645 | 0.455 | -0.246, 1.54 | 0.158 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.552 | 0.654 | -0.730, 1.83 | 0.400 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.823 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.164 | -3.50, 1.06 | 0.297 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.575 | 0.706 | -1.96, 0.810 | 0.417 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.15 | 1.016 | -4.14, -0.162 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.450 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.636 | -0.238, 2.25 | 0.114 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.381 | 0.370 | -0.345, 1.11 | 0.305 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.469 | 0.533 | -0.576, 1.51 | 0.380 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.364 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.515 | -0.001, 2.02 | 0.051 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.658 | 0.330 | 0.011, 1.30 | 0.048 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.161 | 0.474 | -0.769, 1.09 | 0.735 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.776 | 27.6, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.097 | -0.134, 4.17 | 0.067 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.05 | 0.640 | -0.209, 2.30 | 0.104 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.612 | 0.921 | -1.19, 2.42 | 0.507 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.140 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.199 | -0.461, 0.317 | 0.717 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.159 | 0.174 | -0.500, 0.182 | 0.362 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.148 | 0.250 | -0.342, 0.637 | 0.556 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.307 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.435 | -0.132, 1.57 | 0.099 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.861 | 0.333 | 0.209, 1.51 | 0.010 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.727 | 0.478 | -1.66, 0.210 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.380 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.538 | -0.590, 1.52 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.758 | 0.378 | 0.017, 1.50 | 0.047 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.108 | 0.543 | -0.957, 1.17 | 0.842 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.622 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.880 | -0.540, 2.91 | 0.179 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.62 | 0.631 | 0.380, 2.86 | 0.011 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.619 | 0.907 | -2.40, 1.16 | 0.496 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.405 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.572 | -0.594, 1.65 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.842 | 0.369 | 0.119, 1.56 | 0.024 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.070 | 0.530 | -1.11, 0.970 | 0.895 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.228 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.323 | -0.641, 0.625 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.170 | 0.271 | -0.361, 0.701 | 0.531 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.644 | 0.389 | -0.119, 1.41 | 0.100 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.276 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.390 | -0.852, 0.676 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.420 | 0.308 | -1.02, 0.183 | 0.174 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.636 | 0.442 | -1.50, 0.230 | 0.152 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.326 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.461 | -0.679, 1.13 | 0.627 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.451 | 0.305 | -1.05, 0.146 | 0.141 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.714 | 0.438 | -1.57, 0.145 | 0.105 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.471 | -1.00, 0.843 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.729 | 0.308 | -1.33, -0.126 | 0.019 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.119 | 0.443 | -0.987, 0.749 | 0.789 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.473 | -0.519, 1.34 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.539 | 0.307 | -1.14, 0.063 | 0.081 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.525 | 0.441 | -1.39, 0.339 | 0.235 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.936 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.323 | -2.04, 3.15 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.70 | 0.786 | -3.24, -0.156 | 0.032 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.31 | 1.131 | -3.53, 0.904 | 0.247 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(399) = 29.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(399) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.33], t(399) = 0.33, p = 0.741; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.67], t(399) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(399) = 66.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(399) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.46], t(399) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.11, 1.69], t(399) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.04, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.69, 30.68], t(399) = 58.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.74], t(399) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.59], t(399) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [0.05, 2.61], t(399) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [8.63e-03, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(399) = 62.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.55], t(399) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.42], t(399) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.93], t(399) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.76], t(399) = 58.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.16], t(399) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.88], t(399) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.36], t(399) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(399) = 50.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(399) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.82], t(399) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.13], t(399) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.38], t(399) = 45.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.21], t(399) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.51], t(399) = 0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.18, 1.55], t(399) = 2.47, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.07, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.79, 33.20], t(399) = 36.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.12], t(399) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.07], t(399) = -1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, 7.47e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.21], t(399) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 6.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(399) = 53.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.13], t(399) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.19], t(399) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.31], t(399) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.52], t(399) = 47.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(399) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.98], t(399) = 0.07, p = 0.942; Std. beta = 6.07e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.05], t(399) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.39, 20.93], t(399) = 30.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.43, 3.16], t(399) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.13], t(399) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.37, 1.87], t(399) = 0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [10.00, 11.30], t(399) = 31.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(399) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.95], t(399) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.70], t(399) = -0.19, p = 0.853; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.05, 16.20], t(399) = 27.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.97e-13, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.52], t(399) = 3.83e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.89e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.73], t(399) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.45], t(399) = 0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.31, 22.79], t(399) = 34.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(399) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.12], t(399) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-9.43e-03, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.30], t(399) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(399) = 41.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.85], t(399) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.05, 1.57], t(399) = 2.09, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.01, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.78], t(399) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.67, 13.66], t(399) = 52.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.04, 1.44], t(399) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30], t(399) = -0.73, p = 0.466; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.18], t(399) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(399) = 58.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.19], t(399) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.87], t(399) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.11], t(399) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(399) = 41.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.52], t(399) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.80], t(399) = 1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.95], t(399) = 0.60, p = 0.547; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(399) = 53.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.59], t(399) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.54], t(399) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.83], t(399) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(399) = 33.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.50, 1.06], t(399) = -1.05, p = 0.296; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.81], t(399) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.15, 95% CI [-4.14, -0.16], t(399) = -2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.44, -0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(399) = 30.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.25], t(399) = 1.59, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.11], t(399) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(399) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(399) = 42.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.28e-03, 2.02], t(399) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-3.10e-04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.01, 1.30], t(399) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [2.70e-03, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.09], t(399) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.65, 30.69], t(399) = 37.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 4.17], t(399) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.30], t(399) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.42], t(399) = 0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(399) = 91.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(399) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.18], t(399) = -0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.64], t(399) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(399) = 46.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.57], t(399) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.21, 1.51], t(399) = 2.59, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.06, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.21], t(399) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.90], t(399) = 34.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.52], t(399) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.02, 1.50], t(399) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [3.90e-03, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.17], t(399) = 0.20, p = 0.842; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.29, 28.73], t(399) = 44.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.91], t(399) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.62, 95% CI [0.38, 2.86], t(399) = 2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.05, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.40, 1.16], t(399) = -0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(399) = 46.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(399) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.12, 1.56], t(399) = 2.28, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.03, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.97], t(399) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.91, 14.81], t(399) = 62.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.62], t(399) = -0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.13e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.70], t(399) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.41], t(399) = 1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(399) = 42.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(399) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.18], t(399) = -1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.23], t(399) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(399) = 31.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.13], t(399) = 0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.15], t(399) = -1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.14], t(399) = -1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(399) = 30.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(399) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.33, -0.13], t(399) = -2.37, p = 0.018; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, -0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.75], t(399) = -0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(399) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(399) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.06], t(399) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.34], t(399) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(399) = 31.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.15], t(399) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-3.24, -0.16], t(399) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.53, 0.90], t(399) = -1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,289.763 | 1,301.775 | -641.881 | 1,283.763 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,291.381 | 1,315.404 | -639.690 | 1,279.381 | 4.382 | 3 | 0.223 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,974.128 | 1,986.140 | -984.064 | 1,968.128 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,971.955 | 1,995.978 | -979.977 | 1,959.955 | 8.173 | 3 | 0.043 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,459.946 | 2,471.957 | -1,226.973 | 2,453.946 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,444.759 | 2,468.782 | -1,216.379 | 2,432.759 | 21.187 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,675.290 | 1,687.302 | -834.645 | 1,669.290 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,676.618 | 1,700.642 | -832.309 | 1,664.618 | 4.672 | 3 | 0.197 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,030.236 | 2,042.247 | -1,012.118 | 2,024.236 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,024.366 | 2,048.389 | -1,006.183 | 2,012.366 | 11.870 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,924.085 | 1,936.097 | -959.043 | 1,918.085 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,917.036 | 1,941.060 | -952.518 | 1,905.036 | 13.049 | 3 | 0.005 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,820.522 | 1,832.534 | -907.261 | 1,814.522 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,813.731 | 1,837.755 | -900.866 | 1,801.731 | 12.791 | 3 | 0.005 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,877.101 | 2,889.112 | -1,435.550 | 2,871.101 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,875.564 | 2,899.588 | -1,431.782 | 2,863.564 | 7.536 | 3 | 0.057 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,290.083 | 2,302.095 | -1,142.042 | 2,284.083 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,292.540 | 2,316.564 | -1,140.270 | 2,280.540 | 3.543 | 3 | 0.315 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,470.091 | 2,482.102 | -1,232.045 | 2,464.091 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,471.688 | 2,495.711 | -1,229.844 | 2,459.688 | 4.403 | 3 | 0.221 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,643.551 | 2,655.562 | -1,318.775 | 2,637.551 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,639.513 | 2,663.536 | -1,313.756 | 2,627.513 | 10.038 | 3 | 0.018 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,077.703 | 2,089.714 | -1,035.851 | 2,071.703 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,079.558 | 2,103.581 | -1,033.779 | 2,067.558 | 4.145 | 3 | 0.246 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,502.414 | 2,514.426 | -1,248.207 | 2,496.414 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,502.877 | 2,526.900 | -1,245.438 | 2,490.877 | 5.537 | 3 | 0.136 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,617.952 | 2,629.964 | -1,305.976 | 2,611.952 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,618.836 | 2,642.859 | -1,303.418 | 2,606.836 | 5.116 | 3 | 0.164 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,276.787 | 2,288.799 | -1,135.394 | 2,270.787 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,261.690 | 2,285.714 | -1,124.845 | 2,249.690 | 21.097 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,905.797 | 1,917.808 | -949.898 | 1,899.797 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,902.696 | 1,926.719 | -945.348 | 1,890.696 | 9.101 | 3 | 0.028 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,999.097 | 2,011.108 | -996.548 | 1,993.097 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,995.909 | 2,019.933 | -991.955 | 1,983.909 | 9.187 | 3 | 0.027 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,004.216 | 2,016.227 | -999.108 | 1,998.216 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,001.672 | 2,025.696 | -994.836 | 1,989.672 | 8.543 | 3 | 0.036 |
els | null | 3 | 2,484.519 | 2,496.531 | -1,239.260 | 2,478.519 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,479.267 | 2,503.291 | -1,233.634 | 2,467.267 | 11.252 | 3 | 0.010 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,835.828 | 2,847.839 | -1,414.914 | 2,829.828 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,824.726 | 2,848.750 | -1,406.363 | 2,812.726 | 17.101 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,327.132 | 2,339.144 | -1,160.566 | 2,321.132 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,323.708 | 2,347.732 | -1,155.854 | 2,311.708 | 9.424 | 3 | 0.024 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,187.472 | 2,199.484 | -1,090.736 | 2,181.472 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,179.360 | 2,203.383 | -1,083.680 | 2,167.360 | 14.112 | 3 | 0.003 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,772.890 | 2,784.902 | -1,383.445 | 2,766.890 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,765.821 | 2,789.844 | -1,376.910 | 2,753.821 | 13.069 | 3 | 0.004 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,481.568 | 1,493.580 | -737.784 | 1,475.568 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,486.712 | 1,510.735 | -737.356 | 1,474.712 | 0.856 | 3 | 0.836 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,091.560 | 2,103.572 | -1,042.780 | 2,085.560 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,089.428 | 2,113.451 | -1,038.714 | 2,077.428 | 8.132 | 3 | 0.043 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,243.035 | 2,255.047 | -1,118.518 | 2,237.035 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,239.378 | 2,263.401 | -1,113.689 | 2,227.378 | 9.657 | 3 | 0.022 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,647.775 | 2,659.787 | -1,320.888 | 2,641.775 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,643.682 | 2,667.705 | -1,315.841 | 2,631.682 | 10.093 | 3 | 0.018 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,270.367 | 2,282.379 | -1,132.184 | 2,264.367 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,266.414 | 2,290.438 | -1,127.207 | 2,254.414 | 9.953 | 3 | 0.019 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,873.832 | 1,885.844 | -933.916 | 1,867.832 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,870.561 | 1,894.585 | -929.281 | 1,858.561 | 9.270 | 3 | 0.026 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,015.686 | 2,027.698 | -1,004.843 | 2,009.686 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,008.381 | 2,032.405 | -998.191 | 1,996.381 | 13.305 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,107.473 | 2,119.484 | -1,050.736 | 2,101.473 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,097.914 | 2,121.937 | -1,042.957 | 2,085.914 | 15.559 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,119.420 | 2,131.431 | -1,056.710 | 2,113.420 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,112.857 | 2,136.880 | -1,050.429 | 2,100.857 | 12.563 | 3 | 0.006 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,122.547 | 2,134.558 | -1,058.273 | 2,116.547 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,114.076 | 2,138.099 | -1,051.038 | 2,102.076 | 14.471 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,934.849 | 2,946.861 | -1,464.425 | 2,928.849 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,922.935 | 2,946.958 | -1,455.468 | 2,910.935 | 17.914 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.21 | 0.403 | 0.131 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 80 | 3.25 ± 1.19 | -0.049 | 75 | 3.38 ± 1.19 | -0.314 | 0.494 | -0.134 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.01 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.01 | 0.834 | 0.044 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 80 | 17.79 ± 2.79 | 0.049 | 75 | 18.61 ± 2.77 | -0.443 | 0.066 | -0.449 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.67 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.67 | 0.640 | -0.114 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 80 | 30.39 ± 5.10 | -0.239 | 75 | 32.06 ± 5.05 | -0.690 | 0.042 | -0.565 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.09 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.09 | 0.904 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 80 | 11.66 ± 1.94 | -0.027 | 75 | 12.07 ± 1.92 | -0.324 | 0.185 | -0.322 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.29 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.29 | 0.410 | -0.186 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 80 | 17.51 ± 3.00 | -0.176 | 75 | 18.41 ± 2.98 | -0.478 | 0.061 | -0.488 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.118 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 80 | 13.49 ± 2.65 | -0.221 | 75 | 14.13 ± 2.62 | -0.513 | 0.132 | -0.410 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.42 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.42 | 0.201 | 0.245 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 80 | 9.99 ± 2.28 | -0.022 | 75 | 10.46 ± 2.27 | -0.562 | 0.199 | -0.294 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.73 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.73 | 0.296 | 0.261 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 80 | 30.08 ± 8.71 | 0.288 | 75 | 28.85 ± 8.61 | 0.276 | 0.379 | 0.249 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.60 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.60 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 80 | 22.48 ± 4.19 | -0.164 | 75 | 22.68 ± 4.15 | -0.245 | 0.769 | -0.077 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.77 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.77 | 0.251 | -0.267 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 80 | 24.54 ± 5.24 | -0.011 | 75 | 26.06 ± 5.19 | -0.228 | 0.070 | -0.484 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.24 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.24 | 0.136 | -0.368 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 80 | 20.67 ± 6.50 | -0.269 | 75 | 22.28 ± 6.43 | -0.336 | 0.120 | -0.435 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.72 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.72 | 0.456 | -0.199 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 80 | 11.06 ± 3.30 | -0.232 | 75 | 11.34 ± 3.25 | -0.191 | 0.597 | -0.158 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.12 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.12 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 80 | 15.91 ± 5.49 | -0.249 | 75 | 16.00 ± 5.43 | -0.277 | 0.921 | -0.028 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.06 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.06 | 0.720 | -0.088 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 80 | 22.58 ± 6.34 | -0.284 | 75 | 22.63 ± 6.27 | -0.209 | 0.962 | -0.013 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.38 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.38 | 0.171 | -0.302 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 80 | 16.98 ± 4.02 | -0.321 | 75 | 18.43 ± 3.98 | -0.595 | 0.025 | -0.575 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.83 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.83 | 0.038 | -0.465 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 80 | 12.99 ± 2.58 | 0.112 | 75 | 14.22 ± 2.56 | -0.193 | 0.003 | -0.769 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.20 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.20 | 0.334 | -0.223 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 80 | 17.10 ± 2.91 | -0.193 | 75 | 17.84 ± 2.88 | -0.390 | 0.113 | -0.420 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.31 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.31 | 0.098 | -0.416 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 80 | 12.70 ± 2.96 | -0.173 | 75 | 13.62 ± 2.93 | -0.307 | 0.053 | -0.549 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.05 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.05 | 0.156 | -0.370 | ||
els | 2nd | 80 | 29.81 ± 5.38 | -0.219 | 75 | 31.45 ± 5.31 | -0.407 | 0.057 | -0.558 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.20 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.20 | 0.297 | 0.266 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 80 | 27.31 ± 8.21 | 0.126 | 75 | 23.94 ± 8.11 | 0.597 | 0.011 | 0.737 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 5.03 | 125 | 14.85 ± 5.03 | 0.114 | -0.421 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 80 | 14.22 ± 4.45 | -0.159 | 75 | 15.70 ± 4.40 | -0.355 | 0.039 | -0.617 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.07 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.07 | 0.051 | -0.471 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 80 | 15.99 ± 3.67 | -0.307 | 75 | 17.15 ± 3.63 | -0.382 | 0.047 | -0.546 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.67 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.67 | 0.067 | -0.488 | ||
shs | 2nd | 80 | 30.21 ± 7.69 | -0.253 | 75 | 32.84 ± 7.59 | -0.401 | 0.033 | -0.636 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.57 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.57 | 0.717 | 0.062 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 80 | 12.64 ± 1.51 | 0.137 | 75 | 12.72 ± 1.51 | 0.010 | 0.756 | -0.065 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.44 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.44 | 0.099 | -0.329 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 80 | 15.22 ± 3.21 | -0.394 | 75 | 15.21 ± 3.20 | -0.061 | 0.989 | 0.003 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.25 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.25 | 0.389 | -0.188 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 80 | 13.91 ± 3.90 | -0.307 | 75 | 14.48 ± 3.87 | -0.351 | 0.360 | -0.232 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.95 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.95 | 0.179 | -0.287 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 80 | 29.13 ± 6.41 | -0.392 | 75 | 29.70 ± 6.37 | -0.242 | 0.582 | -0.137 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.52 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.52 | 0.357 | -0.221 | ||
empower | 2nd | 80 | 19.69 ± 4.08 | -0.352 | 75 | 20.15 ± 4.04 | -0.323 | 0.483 | -0.191 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.55 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.55 | 0.980 | 0.004 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 80 | 14.53 ± 2.44 | -0.095 | 75 | 15.17 ± 2.43 | -0.453 | 0.105 | -0.354 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.08 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.08 | 0.822 | 0.043 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 80 | 11.37 ± 2.90 | 0.207 | 75 | 10.65 ± 2.89 | 0.521 | 0.120 | 0.357 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.64 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.64 | 0.627 | -0.113 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 80 | 9.95 ± 3.30 | 0.228 | 75 | 9.46 ± 3.27 | 0.588 | 0.354 | 0.247 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.040 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 80 | 9.45 ± 3.37 | 0.364 | 75 | 9.25 ± 3.34 | 0.424 | 0.713 | 0.099 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.389 | -0.205 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 80 | 8.17 ± 3.38 | 0.270 | 75 | 8.06 ± 3.35 | 0.534 | 0.828 | 0.059 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.46 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.46 | 0.677 | -0.109 | ||
sss | 2nd | 80 | 27.59 ± 9.30 | 0.334 | 75 | 26.83 ± 9.18 | 0.592 | 0.609 | 0.150 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(367.63) = -0.84, p = 0.403, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(400.68) = 0.68, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.50)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(314.34) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(392.12) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.70)
ras_confidence
1st
t(294.46) = 0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.75)
2st
t(377.78) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.27)
ras_willingness
1st
t(314.99) = 0.12, p = 0.904, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.55)
2st
t(392.40) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.02)
ras_goal
1st
t(302.97) = 0.83, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.16)
2st
t(385.43) = 1.88, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.85)
ras_reliance
1st
t(296.77) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.91)
2st
t(380.14) = 1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.47)
ras_domination
1st
t(327.07) = -1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)
2st
t(396.46) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.19)
symptom
1st
t(291.97) = -1.05, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.71 to 1.13)
2st
t(374.97) = -0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.96 to 1.51)
slof_work
1st
t(301.92) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.14)
2st
t(384.64) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.51)
slof_relationship
1st
t(299.66) = 1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.28)
2st
t(382.79) = 1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.17)
satisfaction
1st
t(293.30) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.17)
2st
t(376.51) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.66)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(285.95) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)
2st
t(366.89) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.31)
mhc_social
1st
t(292.88) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.52)
2st
t(376.03) = 0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.81)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(293.10) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.08)
2st
t(376.28) = 0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.94 to 2.04)
resilisnce
1st
t(306.14) = 1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)
2st
t(387.64) = 2.25, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.71)
social_provision
1st
t(304.29) = 2.08, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.45)
2st
t(386.39) = 2.98, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.42 to 2.04)
els_value_living
1st
t(300.67) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(383.64) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.65)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(291.78) = 1.66, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.52)
2st
t(374.76) = 1.94, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.85)
els
1st
t(288.06) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.59)
2st
t(369.95) = 1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.05 to 3.33)
social_connect
1st
t(290.08) = -1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.51 to 1.07)
2st
t(372.65) = -2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-5.95 to -0.79)
shs_agency
1st
t(286.27) = 1.59, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.26)
2st
t(367.37) = 2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.88)
shs_pathway
1st
t(295.69) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.02)
2st
t(379.06) = 1.99, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.32)
shs
1st
t(286.46) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.14 to 4.17)
2st
t(367.65) = 2.14, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.22 to 5.04)
esteem
1st
t(348.49) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)
2st
t(399.74) = 0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.55)
mlq_search
1st
t(320.68) = 1.66, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(394.60) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.01)
mlq_presence
1st
t(307.40) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)
2st
t(388.44) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.80)
mlq
1st
t(310.32) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.91)
2st
t(390.13) = 0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.58)
empower
1st
t(296.34) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)
2st
t(379.72) = 0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.74)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(338.59) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.63)
2st
t(398.65) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.40)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(326.21) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)
2st
t(396.24) = -1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.19)
sss_affective
1st
t(299.40) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(382.56) = -0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.55)
sss_behavior
1st
t(297.98) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(381.29) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.26 to 0.86)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(297.01) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(380.37) = -0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.94)
sss
1st
t(288.08) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.16)
2st
t(369.97) = -0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.68 to 2.16)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(203.77) = 2.05, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.01 to 0.60)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(179.81) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.39)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(171.77) = 4.32, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (1.10 to 2.96)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(180.07) = 2.05, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.02 to 0.81)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(175.19) = 3.01, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.30 to 1.46)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(172.70) = 3.22, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.29)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(185.08) = 3.58, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.39)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(170.77) = -1.72, p = 0.173, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.91 to 0.20)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(174.77) = 1.54, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.43)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(173.86) = 1.43, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.71)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(171.30) = 2.10, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.42)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(168.36) = 1.19, p = 0.472, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.89)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(171.13) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.85)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(171.22) = 1.31, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.90)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(176.47) = 3.75, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.71 to 2.29)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(175.72) = 1.21, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.81)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(174.27) = 2.45, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.24)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(170.70) = 1.92, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.04)
els
1st vs 2st
t(169.21) = 2.54, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.13)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(170.02) = -3.73, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.17 to -1.28)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(168.49) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.61)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(172.26) = 2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.49)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(168.57) = 2.50, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.97)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(194.42) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.34)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(182.41) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(176.98) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.64)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(178.17) = 1.53, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.29)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(172.52) = 2.02, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.53)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(190.00) = 2.91, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.37)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(184.72) = -3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.68 to -0.43)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(173.76) = -3.70, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-1.79 to -0.54)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(173.18) = -2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.48 to -0.22)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(172.79) = -3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.69 to -0.44)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(169.21) = -3.70, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.62 to -1.40)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(196.74) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.33)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(176.24) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.46)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(169.31) = 1.55, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.60)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(176.46) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.42)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(172.26) = 1.14, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.88)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(170.11) = 1.44, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.82)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(180.76) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.52)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(168.45) = -1.86, p = 0.128, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.92 to 0.08)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(171.90) = 1.07, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.20)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(171.11) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.99)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(168.91) = 1.74, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.13)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(166.36) = 1.50, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.95)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(168.76) = 1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.74)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(168.84) = 1.84, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.13)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(173.37) = 2.09, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.57)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(172.72) = -0.73, p = 0.936, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.31)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(171.47) = 1.25, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.87)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(168.38) = 1.12, p = 0.527, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.80)
els
1st vs 2st
t(167.10) = 1.42, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.54)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(167.80) = -0.81, p = 0.835, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.82)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(166.48) = 1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.11)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(169.74) = 1.99, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.31)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(166.54) = 1.63, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.31)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(188.76) = -0.91, p = 0.725, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.18)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(178.48) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.52)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(173.80) = 2.00, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.50)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(174.83) = 2.56, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.37 to 2.87)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(169.96) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.57)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(184.99) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.71)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(180.45) = -1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.19)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(171.02) = -1.48, p = 0.282, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.15)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(170.53) = -2.37, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.34 to -0.12)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(170.19) = -1.75, p = 0.162, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.07)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(167.10) = -2.16, p = 0.065, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.25 to -0.14)
Plot
